"A monopolistic juggernaut that is out of control". That is how lawyer Jason McCue described Facebook yesterday morning as he launched a bid to sue the social media company for a staggering $150bn.

Four legal firms in the UK and the USA are taking the action on behalf of Rohingya Muslims who claim the social media platform played a role in stoking a genocide against their people in MyanmarThe largest country in mainland south-east Asia, formerly known as Burma. It is an ethnically diverse place, something that has often resulted in fierce conflict.. They accuse Facebook of being "willing to trade the lives of the Rohingya people for better market penetration in a small country in south-east Asia".

This refers to a Facebook programme called Free Basics, which is designed to spread Facebook services quickly through untapped markets. Under Free Basics, people who sign up for Facebook can also get free internet access. This initiative made the company so dominant in Myanmar that people started using the word "Facebook" interchangeably with "internet".

The catch is that Free Basics users' internet use is curated by Facebook, which ensures that its own services remain dominant. The result: millions of people who had never had internet access before suddenly start using Facebook for everything. Some critics of Facebook have called this "digitalInvolving the use of computers. colonialismThis refers not only to the material realities of colonial rule, but also to the mindset of the colonising powers and their ways of justifying empire. Most Europeans believed that empire was a moral good, because it imparted 'civilisation' to 'primitive' cultures and so helped them to develop.". 

And in Myanmar, it caused serious problems. Facebook's algorithms are designed to show people more of what they are interested in, which, psychologists warn, tends to entrench our opinions and draw us into conspiracy theory rabbit holesA metaphor used to describe someone getting themselves lost in a fantasy world. The term comes from the Lewis Carroll book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.. 

In countries like Myanmar where digital literacyThe ability to use IT effectively to find, evaluate and communicate information. is low, social media users often have difficulty identifying conspiracy theories. So when posts inciting hatred against the Rohingya started spreading on Facebook, many people believed them. 

Facebook admitted in 2018 that it had not done enough to stop the spread of hate speech against the Rohingya. Now its legal challengers want it to pay reparations to those affected.

But some think we should draw a broader lesson from this episode. They think it proves Meta, Facebook's parent company, needs to be broken up.

Meta owns Instagram and WhatsApp as well as Facebook, and across these platforms it reaches 3.6 billion active users every month. This allows it to harvest extraordinary amounts of personal data. For some, this makes Meta effectively a monopoly. They think it is too much power for one company to hold.

Others, however, think the company can do a lot of good. Free Basics might serve Meta's own interests, but the people of Myanmar have also benefited from it. By offering free internet access, Facebook has connected millions of people who might not have been able to afford it otherwise.

And that can be put to good use. Under the country's former military dictatorshipMyanmar was ruled by a military junta until 2011, and it maintained substantial control of the country until 2015, when it was defeated by the National League for Democracy in an election., internet use was tightly controlled. For many, Facebook was the only independent source of information.

And after the coupWhen an individual or group takes control of government by illegal means, including by violence. this year that toppled the country's young democratic government, Facebook became a key tool for organising protests against the junta that seized control in the aftermath.

Yes, say some. Meta's business model is dependent on relentless expansion. That means it will keep aggressively pushing its services in markets where people do not have the digital literacy to use them safely. Since Meta cannot be trusted to act responsibly, we must clip its wings.

No, say others. The problem is not the platform, but the way it is used. Meta has brought the advantages of internet access to millions of people: wealthy westerners do not have the right to withdraw it just because they do not trust people in developing countries to use Facebook responsibly.